Well, I don't really see the big issue when the big cornerstone in modern theology seems to be that uncertainty = possibility = plausibility = certainty.

True. I guess I decided to share this b/c it was an a-ha moment for me, meaning it made it OK for me to not understand the fourth dimension and stop thinking nonsense like: "Maybe it's in the corner. Nah, the corner is defined by the three dimensions." Physics Nobel prize winner in the making right here.

As for theology as a whole and anything but morality, I just think about theologians as willful ignorants. Just b/c you wear a costume doesn't make your arguments 2000 years younger and if you bring up Einstein I'm going to beat you with a stick.

I don't think people are so willing to declare that statement plausible or implausible. The point with the arguments doesnt seem to me to be about proving God exists, it's about listing a bunch of things which are hopefully all more plausible than their negation and then demonstrating that God's existence is a consequence of those.

Hmm - I'm really not very good at this (not sure if it's even going to work.. ). These aren't the thread I was thinking of but they are exchanges with Sharkey and pilliwinks and I think they're interesting:

Pilliwinks enters the fray around post 80, I think.

Here he starts posting around 20, though he's arguing with atheists rather than with Sharkey.

Of course 'interesting' is very much in the eye of the beholder. That first thread is pretty big (assuming the link works). Somewhere they go back and forth about information theory and timescales - that's what I was looking for, but I dont seem to be able to find it...

Thanks. Pill only has 193 posts so I doubt there's much more. The first link, the Sharkey exchange, was mostly about fine distinctions on "what is a scientific theorem?", or something like that, just skimmed it.

The second link was more interesting. I found this in one of his posts:

The quote from Dover at least alludes to the time issue. Pill had been debating others about the applicability of math to evolution, arguing that only a loose, statistics-like approach was valid, because the real world constantly changes what actually is advantageous, so predictability is impossible. He didn't make much progress and considering his opponents, I can see why. I also think his position is somewhat damaging to Craig's probability stance on evolution, which ties in with my view that we simply don't know enough to apply probability to the question. But then everyone will be starting over if some kind of saltation through epigenetics turns out to be real.

Right, fair enough.

And sorry for saying "I don't know why bunny is giving him the benefit of the doubt" (paraphrasing) because you explained in some detail why you were doing just that.

Yeah - there is always the risk that I'm remembering a conversation he and I had face-to-face about the same time as he was arguing with Sharkey. (He joined 2+2 after one of our, at that time, weekly chats and I'm not so confident having looked around that it ever actually made it to SMP...)

There's more to it, in fact - I regularly find myself advocating a position someone else declares absurd/arrogant/ignorant/whatever. I personally find it irritating since it's often (though not always) just because I've misexplained something or that I'm posting between clients and haven't really thought about my response. I'd rather people follow the questioning path you did here (no need to apologise) rather than just leap to some putative account of my motivation.

It's not quite the same since Craig isn't here so all we have is our guesses - nonetheless, it's worth adopting the default assumption that your opponent has a sensibly arguable point of view rather than just presuming he's an idiot/liar.

I thought his posts were excellent - you need to coax him back if you can get him to put up with the flak around here.

I would agree that he'd bring a lot to RGT - he's a professional (and extremely talented at the 'scholarship to Oxbridge' level) geneticist but also an uncompromising and unapologetic Christian. (I think he's much closer to you than me theologically but probably closer to me than you scientifically).

We've kind of drifted apart over the last couple of years, unfortunately though we've known each other pretty well for the twenty years before that. He's one of the most remarkable people I've ever had the pleasure to meet.

You see, this is where the skeptic in me coughs.

You see, I'm convinced the search is done with the conclusion in mind. It's not about about finding things that incidentally shows God's existence...but about finding things that show God's existence.

I also don't think I'm being very unreasonable.

I agree. The point is persuasion - of course it's constructed with that goal in mind.

If you want to know when Dawkins lost his career, it was when Ben Stein interviewed him in Expelled.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc

-Dawkins admits to having no idea how the universe or life started.

-He starts talking about aliens designing humans

-Doesn't know how the eye began

So? He's never claimed to know how the universe or life started, so this is nothing new.

He was asked about intelligent design. He said that it's possible some sort of advanced civilization could have "seeded" earth with life, but of course that civilization would have had to come from some process. A process that he has no clue about, which leaves us back at square one. He didn't say he believes aliens designed humans

So? Is he supposed to know "how the eye began?"

This is not an admission but a statement of fact. And it is a good thing. Do you see why?

Not as a credible theory. And he says that doesn't get rid of the problem of life having to evolved somewhere, so I don't see why that makes him look bad.

Besides that the film is a joke that was widely panned as dishonest and fraudulent.

No, rather Ben Stein came as close as possible to the truth and missed the opportunity to grasp it.

The reason why this interview was important is because Dawkins made a career in bashing God theory, nearly claiming that he has proof that there is no God. He came off as an authority on evolution, as if a modern scientific genius, when in reality he admits to having no clue about anything. That is why he lost his career, and rightfully so.

This fraud's media presence converted a lot of people into atheism, because they thought that he actually did have a clue; wrong.

There is a reason why it's "There is most likely no God, now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

As for Dawikins losing his career, you claim this b/c...?

Evolution isn't about how the universe or life started. Just if it matters.

I don't like him, but it's ludicrous to say Dawkins isn't an authority on evolution or that he's "lost his career".

Um, the only reason he would lose his career if he claimed he DID know the initial origin of life on Earth or the universe, because then he would be crazy.

Science does not know those things, unlike say, universal common descent, which we do know for certain. With regards to the initial origin of cells we reasonably suspect a lot and have filled in a lot of gaps but do not know or have any evidence about how the first replicating cells came about.

After he made a career in evolutionary biology.

I don't understand this "nearly claiming". If you mean he has said he thinks there are good reasons for disbelief, then, yes, he has said that.

He is an authority on evolution. He is an authority on evolutionary theory in general, and on the particular branch of evolutionary thought he subscribes to.

"How the universe started" is a branch of study entirely removed from the field of biology. "How life started" is a field adjunct to but distinguishable from evolutionary theory.

By "lost his career" do you mean "retired"? He is seventy, you know. And the idea that his (partial) retirement was in some way spurred on by this widely-panned flop is laughable.

I get these psychic flashes sometimes: You have not read a single thing Dawkins has written.

[QUOTE}
As for Dawikins losing his career, you claim this b/c...?[/QUOTE]

Because a supposed authority came off as rambling lun who got punked by the high school teacher from The Wonder Years. How integral this interview was to ruining Dawkins career I certainly can't say. What I can say is that immediately prior to this film, Dawkins had reached the height of his career fame, and right afterwards he disappeared from the media. Not many people have seen this interview, but why would the rich congolmerate funding the atheist movement promote a bloke who loses his credibility when asked such simple, fundamental questions? If he just came out from the start admitting that he doesn't know how the universe began, where life came from, and that he thinks its more likely that aliens made us than God, you never would have heard of his name in the first place.

Did he also admit to not having a proof of the Riemann hypothesis?

Expelled released April 18th, 2008.

Part 1 of Dawkins' documentary series The Genius of Charles Darwin airs on Channel 4 August 4th, 2008.

So, yes, you can say that, but it is demonstrably incorrect.

He was asked to examine the possibility of life originating via ID, it's not like he holds it as a good explanation, just like you don't hold a random creation myth as a valid explanation. Ben Stein tries to make it seem as though Dawkins would do anything to not give credit to God for life. And I'd venture a guess that he does this b/c he doesn't persue the truth like scientists do, rather he tries to fit stuff so that it looks like proof that there is a God, willfully ignoring any contrary evidence.